oldsoul
04-03-2007, 04:43 AM
Something to think about:
The Case Against Black Leadership by Spencer Overton
We talk a lot about the need for a great Black leader. Why are there no more leaders like Malcolm X or Martin Luther King? Is Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton the Black “leader” of today? Will the NAACP find a new leader who will revamp the organization and deploy it to lead Black America to freedom? But a Black "leader" may be the last thing we need.
I just read The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations, by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom. The premise of the book is that there are limitations to centralized, coercive, hierarchical organizations headed by a single leader. Decentralized, open groups are often more effective. The title contrasts a spider (chop off its head and it dies) with a starfish (chop it up and it multiplies into several starfish).
Most would think that a lack of hierarchy would bring chaos and disorder. But looks can be deceiving. For example, the centralized Spanish quickly defeated the centralized Aztecs and Incas, but could not defeat the decentralized Apache for over 200 years. Other examples of significant decentralized groups include Alcoholic Anonymous, Wikipedia, Al Qaeda, Craigslist, and filesharing (when attacked by the record labels, Napster was replaced by the even more decentralized Kazaa, Kazaa Lite, and eMule). The problems with a centralized organization include: a) rigidity; b) it dies if you cut off its head; c) the whole organization is harmed if you take out a specialized unit; d) units are funded by the organization; and e) working groups communicate through intermediaries.
The advantages of a decentralized group include: a) flexibility; b) the organization survives if you take out a unit (in fact, when attacked the decentralized organization becomes even more open and decentralized); c) knowledge and power are distributed; d) units are self funding; and e) units close to the action have immediate information and communicate with each other directly.
Certainly, a loose group of individual “leaders” play a role in decentralized organizations. But they have little power themselves—there is no command-and-control. Instead, they are catalysts who inspire others to act through their example. Geronimo is an example of a famous Apache catalyst. The “catalysts” are different than a traditional CEO. As Brafman and Beckstrom explain:
A CEO is The Boss. He's in charge, and he occupies the top of the hierarchy. A catalyst interacts with people as a peer. He comes across as your friend. Because CEOs are at the top of the pyramid, they lead by command-and-control. Catalysts, on the other hand, depend on trust. CEOs must be rational; their job is to create shareholder value. Catalysts depend on emotional intelligence; their job is to create personal relationships. CEOs are powerful and directive; they're at the helm. Catalysts are inspirational and collaborative; they talk about ideology and urge people to work together to make the ideology a reality. Having power puts CEOs in the limelight. Catalysts avoid attention and tend to work behind the scenes. CEOs create order and structure; catalysts thrive on ambiguity and apparent chaos (because decentralized organizations are so fluid). A CEOs job is to maximize profit. A catalyst is usually mission oriented. While no one person enforces conventional “rules” in the decentralized group, power is instead distributed among various people, and shared norms bind the group together (which are often flexible and evolving).
The authors offer several ways of defeating a decentralized group, including: 1) shifting or changing the decentralized group’s ideology (the decentralized group is fueled by its ideology); and 2) centralizing the decentralized group by giving the “catalysts” property or political authority to allocate among their group so that they no longer lead by example but by command-and-control, which breeds infighting, hierarchy, resentment (according to the authors, the U.S. government giving cattle to the Apache eventually led to the conquering of the group).
In earlier times, people generally built decentralized movements on top of the rare pre-existing decentralized platforms that were open to the ideology—platforms like the Quakers to fight slavery, or the Black church to fight Jim Crow. The Internet has significant implications because it makes communication easier and allows individuals to build their own platform for a decentralized movement.
Perhaps we don’t need a great Black leader who professes to have all or most of the answers. Perhaps we don’t need self proclaimed “Black police” to ascertain Black authenticity based on cadence or percentage of slave lineage.
Instead, maybe we need several catalysts--acting on their own accord without the need to climb atop a pyramid--to lead by example. Rather than a centralized NAACP with a leader, perhaps we should follow the lead of Wikipedia or Craigslist and create an online community that connects people to one another, and allows volunteers to focus on the special niche that interests them.
Perhaps we need to celebrate our leaderlessness, and figure out how to make the most of it.
The Case Against Black Leadership by Spencer Overton
We talk a lot about the need for a great Black leader. Why are there no more leaders like Malcolm X or Martin Luther King? Is Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton the Black “leader” of today? Will the NAACP find a new leader who will revamp the organization and deploy it to lead Black America to freedom? But a Black "leader" may be the last thing we need.
I just read The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations, by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom. The premise of the book is that there are limitations to centralized, coercive, hierarchical organizations headed by a single leader. Decentralized, open groups are often more effective. The title contrasts a spider (chop off its head and it dies) with a starfish (chop it up and it multiplies into several starfish).
Most would think that a lack of hierarchy would bring chaos and disorder. But looks can be deceiving. For example, the centralized Spanish quickly defeated the centralized Aztecs and Incas, but could not defeat the decentralized Apache for over 200 years. Other examples of significant decentralized groups include Alcoholic Anonymous, Wikipedia, Al Qaeda, Craigslist, and filesharing (when attacked by the record labels, Napster was replaced by the even more decentralized Kazaa, Kazaa Lite, and eMule). The problems with a centralized organization include: a) rigidity; b) it dies if you cut off its head; c) the whole organization is harmed if you take out a specialized unit; d) units are funded by the organization; and e) working groups communicate through intermediaries.
The advantages of a decentralized group include: a) flexibility; b) the organization survives if you take out a unit (in fact, when attacked the decentralized organization becomes even more open and decentralized); c) knowledge and power are distributed; d) units are self funding; and e) units close to the action have immediate information and communicate with each other directly.
Certainly, a loose group of individual “leaders” play a role in decentralized organizations. But they have little power themselves—there is no command-and-control. Instead, they are catalysts who inspire others to act through their example. Geronimo is an example of a famous Apache catalyst. The “catalysts” are different than a traditional CEO. As Brafman and Beckstrom explain:
A CEO is The Boss. He's in charge, and he occupies the top of the hierarchy. A catalyst interacts with people as a peer. He comes across as your friend. Because CEOs are at the top of the pyramid, they lead by command-and-control. Catalysts, on the other hand, depend on trust. CEOs must be rational; their job is to create shareholder value. Catalysts depend on emotional intelligence; their job is to create personal relationships. CEOs are powerful and directive; they're at the helm. Catalysts are inspirational and collaborative; they talk about ideology and urge people to work together to make the ideology a reality. Having power puts CEOs in the limelight. Catalysts avoid attention and tend to work behind the scenes. CEOs create order and structure; catalysts thrive on ambiguity and apparent chaos (because decentralized organizations are so fluid). A CEOs job is to maximize profit. A catalyst is usually mission oriented. While no one person enforces conventional “rules” in the decentralized group, power is instead distributed among various people, and shared norms bind the group together (which are often flexible and evolving).
The authors offer several ways of defeating a decentralized group, including: 1) shifting or changing the decentralized group’s ideology (the decentralized group is fueled by its ideology); and 2) centralizing the decentralized group by giving the “catalysts” property or political authority to allocate among their group so that they no longer lead by example but by command-and-control, which breeds infighting, hierarchy, resentment (according to the authors, the U.S. government giving cattle to the Apache eventually led to the conquering of the group).
In earlier times, people generally built decentralized movements on top of the rare pre-existing decentralized platforms that were open to the ideology—platforms like the Quakers to fight slavery, or the Black church to fight Jim Crow. The Internet has significant implications because it makes communication easier and allows individuals to build their own platform for a decentralized movement.
Perhaps we don’t need a great Black leader who professes to have all or most of the answers. Perhaps we don’t need self proclaimed “Black police” to ascertain Black authenticity based on cadence or percentage of slave lineage.
Instead, maybe we need several catalysts--acting on their own accord without the need to climb atop a pyramid--to lead by example. Rather than a centralized NAACP with a leader, perhaps we should follow the lead of Wikipedia or Craigslist and create an online community that connects people to one another, and allows volunteers to focus on the special niche that interests them.
Perhaps we need to celebrate our leaderlessness, and figure out how to make the most of it.